Articles | Volume 17, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1409-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1409-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
16 Feb 2024
Development and technical paper |
| 16 Feb 2024
| 16 Feb 2024
Numerical coupling of aerosol emissions, dry removal, and turbulent mixing in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) – Part 2: A semi-discrete error analysis framework for assessing coupling schemes
Center for Applied Scientific Computing, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Atmospheric, Climate, and Earth Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA
Carol S. Woodward
Center for Applied Scientific Computing, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Quan M. Bui
Center for Applied Scientific Computing, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
now at: Blue River Technology, Sunnyvale, California, USA
Related authors
Hui Wan, Kai Zhang, Christopher J. Vogl, Carol S. Woodward, Richard C. Easter, Philip J. Rasch, Yan Feng, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1387–1407, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Sophisticated numerical models of the Earth's atmosphere include representations of many physical and chemical processes. In numerical simulations, these processes need to be calculated in a certain sequence. This study reveals the weaknesses of the sequence of calculations used for aerosol processes in a global atmosphere model. A revision of the sequence is proposed and its impacts on the simulated global aerosol climatology are evaluated.
Hui Wan, Abhishek Yenpure, Berk Geveci, Richard C. Easter, Philip J. Rasch, Kai Zhang, and Xubin Zeng
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5655–5680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5655-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5655-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 2 (E3SMv2) and many other global models, the simulated anthropogenic aerosol effective radiative forcing is sensitive to the presence of clouds with very low droplet number concentrations. Numerical experiments presented in this paper indicate that mid- and high-latitude low-level stratus occurring under weak turbulence is a key cloud regime for investigating the causes of these very low cloud droplet number concentrations in E3SMv2.
Yu Yao, Po-Lun Ma, Yi Qin, Matthew W. Christensen, Hui Wan, Kai Zhang, Balwinder Singh, Meng Huang, and Mikhail Ovchinnikov
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-523, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-523, 2024
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
Giant aerosols have substantial effects on warm rain formation. However, it remains challenging to quantify the impact of giant particles at global scale. In this work, we applied earth system model to investigate its impacts by implementing new giant aerosol treatments to consider its physical process. We found this approach substantially affect liquid cloud and improved model's precipitation response to aerosols. Our findings demonstrate the significant impact of giant aerosols on climate.
Hui Wan, Kai Zhang, Christopher J. Vogl, Carol S. Woodward, Richard C. Easter, Philip J. Rasch, Yan Feng, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1387–1407, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Sophisticated numerical models of the Earth's atmosphere include representations of many physical and chemical processes. In numerical simulations, these processes need to be calculated in a certain sequence. This study reveals the weaknesses of the sequence of calculations used for aerosol processes in a global atmosphere model. A revision of the sequence is proposed and its impacts on the simulated global aerosol climatology are evaluated.
Shixuan Zhang, Kai Zhang, Hui Wan, and Jian Sun
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6787–6816, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6787-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6787-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the nudging implementation in the EAMv1 model. We find that (1) revising the sequence of calculations and using higher-frequency constraining data to improve the performance of a simulation nudged to EAMv1’s own meteorology, (2) using the relocated nudging tendency and 3-hourly ERA5 reanalysis to obtain a better agreement between nudged simulations and observations, and (3) using wind-only nudging are recommended for the estimates of global mean aerosol effects.
Kai Zhang, Wentao Zhang, Hui Wan, Philip J. Rasch, Steven J. Ghan, Richard C. Easter, Xiangjun Shi, Yong Wang, Hailong Wang, Po-Lun Ma, Shixuan Zhang, Jian Sun, Susannah M. Burrows, Manish Shrivastava, Balwinder Singh, Yun Qian, Xiaohong Liu, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Qi Tang, Xue Zheng, Shaocheng Xie, Wuyin Lin, Yan Feng, Minghuai Wang, Jin-Ho Yoon, and L. Ruby Leung
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 9129–9160, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9129-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9129-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Here we analyze the effective aerosol forcing simulated by E3SM version 1 using both century-long free-running and short nudged simulations. The aerosol forcing in E3SMv1 is relatively large compared to other models, mainly due to the large indirect aerosol effect. Aerosol-induced changes in liquid and ice cloud properties in E3SMv1 have a strong correlation. The aerosol forcing estimates in E3SMv1 are sensitive to the parameterization changes in both liquid and ice cloud processes.
Hui Wan, Kai Zhang, Philip J. Rasch, Vincent E. Larson, Xubin Zeng, Shixuan Zhang, and Ross Dixon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3205–3231, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3205-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3205-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a tool embedded in a global climate model for sampling atmospheric conditions and monitoring physical processes as a numerical simulation is being carried out. The tool facilitates process-level model evaluation by allowing the users to select a wide range of quantities and processes to monitor at run time without having to do tedious ad hoc coding.
Po-Lun Ma, Bryce E. Harrop, Vincent E. Larson, Richard B. Neale, Andrew Gettelman, Hugh Morrison, Hailong Wang, Kai Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Mark D. Zelinka, Yuying Zhang, Yun Qian, Jin-Ho Yoon, Christopher R. Jones, Meng Huang, Sheng-Lun Tai, Balwinder Singh, Peter A. Bogenschutz, Xue Zheng, Wuyin Lin, Johannes Quaas, Hélène Chepfer, Michael A. Brunke, Xubin Zeng, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Samson Hagos, Zhibo Zhang, Hua Song, Xiaohong Liu, Michael S. Pritchard, Hui Wan, Jingyu Wang, Qi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Jiwen Fan, Larry K. Berg, Jerome D. Fast, Mark A. Taylor, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Shaocheng Xie, Philip J. Rasch, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2881–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An alternative set of parameters for E3SM Atmospheric Model version 1 has been developed based on a tuning strategy that focuses on clouds. When clouds in every regime are improved, other aspects of the model are also improved, even though they are not the direct targets for calibration. The recalibrated model shows a lower sensitivity to anthropogenic aerosols and surface warming, suggesting potential improvements to the simulated climate in the past and future.
Hui Wan, Shixuan Zhang, Philip J. Rasch, Vincent E. Larson, Xubin Zeng, and Huiping Yan
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1921–1948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1921-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1921-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical models used in weather and climate research and prediction unavoidably contain numerical errors resulting from temporal discretization, and the impact of such errors can be substantial. Complex process interactions often make it difficult to pinpoint the exact sources of such errors. This study uses a series of sensitivity experiments to identify components in a global atmosphere model that are responsible for time step sensitivities in various cloud regimes.
Cited articles
Barrett, A. I., Wellmann, C., Seifert, A., Hoose, C., Vogel, B., and Kunz, M.: One Step at a Time: How Model Time Step Significantly Affects Convection-Permitting Simulations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 641–658, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001418, 2019. a
Caya, A., Laprise, R., and Zwack, P.: Consequences of Using the Splitting Method for Implementing Physical Forcings in a Semi-Implicit Semi-Lagrangian Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 126, 1707–1713, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<1707:COUTSM>2.0.CO;2, 1998. a
Donahue, A. S. and Caldwell, P. M.: Performance and Accuracy Implications of Parallel Split Physics-Dynamics Coupling in the Energy Exascale Earth System Atmosphere Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2020MS002080, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002080, 2020. a
Dubal, M., Wood, N., and Staniforth, A.: Analysis of Parallel versus Sequential Splittings for Time-Stepping Physical Parameterizations, Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 121–132, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)131<0121:AOPVSS>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Dubal, M., Wood, N., and Staniforth, A.: Mixed Parallel-Sequential-Split Schemes for Time-Stepping Multiple Physical Parameterizations, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 989–1002, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2893.1, 2005. a
Dubal, M., Wood, N., and Staniforth, A.: Some numerical properties of approaches to physics-dynamics coupling for NWP, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 132, 27–42, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.49, 2006. a
Feng, Y., Wang, H., Rasch, P. J., Zhang, K., Lin, W., Tang, Q., Xie, S., Hamilton, D. S., Mahowald, N., and Yu, H.: Global Dust Cycle and Direct Radiative Effect in E3SM Version 1: Impact of Increasing Model Resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002909, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002909, 2022. a, b, c
Gross, M., Wan, H., Rasch, P. J., Caldwell, P. M., Williamson, D. L., Klocke, D., Jablonowski, C., Thatcher, D. R., Wood, N., Cullen, M., Beare, B., Willett, M., Lemarié, F., Blayo, E., Malardel, S., Termonia, P., Gassmann, A., Lauritzen, P. H., Johansen, H., Zarzycki, C., Sakaguchi, K., and Leung, R.: Physics–Dynamics Coupling in Weather, Climate, and Earth System Models: Challenges and Recent Progress, Mon. Weather Rev., 146, 3505–3544, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0345.1, 2018. a, b
Hairer, E., Wanner, G., and Lubich, C.: Numerical Integrators, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 27–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30666-8_2, 2006. a
Heinzeller, D., Bernardet, L., Firl, G., Zhang, M., Sun, X., and Ek, M.: The Common Community Physics Package (CCPP) Framework v6, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2235–2259, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2235-2023, 2023. a
Keyes, D. E., McInnes, L. C., Woodward, C., et al.: Multiphysics simulations: Challenges and opportunities, Int. J. High Perform. C., 27, 4–83, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342012468181, 2013. a
LeVeque, R. J.: Time-split methods for partial differential equations, PhD thesis, Stanford University, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA119417.pdf (last access: 12 February 2024), 1982. a
Rasch, P. J., Xie, S., Ma, P.-L., Lin, W., Wang, H., Tang, Q., Burrows, S. M., Caldwell, P., Zhang, K., Easter, R. C., Cameron-Smith, P., Singh, B., Wan, H., Golaz, J.-C., Harrop, B. E., Roesler, E., Bacmeister, J., Larson, V. E., Evans, K. J., Qian, Y., Taylor, M., Leung, L. R., Zhang, Y., Brent, L., Branstetter, M., Hannay, C., Mahajan, S., Mametjanov, A., Neale, R., Richter, J. H., Yoon, J.-H., Zender, C. S., Bader, D., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Jacob, R., Keen, N., Klein, S. A., Liu, X., Salinger, A., Shrivastava, M., and Yang, Y.: An Overview of the Atmospheric Component of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2377–2411, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001629, 2019. a
Santos, S. P., Caldwell, P. M., and Bretherton, C. S.: Cloud Process Coupling and Time Integration in the E3SM Atmosphere Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002359, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002359, 2021. a, b
Staniforth, A., Wood, N., and Côté, J.: Analysis of the numerics of physics-dynamics coupling, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 128, 2779–2799, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.02.25, 2002. a
Ubbiali, S., Schär, C., Schlemmer, L., and Schulthess, T. C.: A Numerical Analysis of Six Physics-Dynamics Coupling Schemes for Atmospheric Models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002377, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002377, 2021. a, b, c
Wan, H.: EAMv1 code with revised aerosol process coupling (tag v1_cflx_2021), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7995850, 2023. a
Wan, H. and Zhang, K.: Compressed EAMv1 simulation output for evaluating two aerosol process coupling schemes, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10407375, 2023. a
Wan, H., Rasch, P. J., Zhang, K., Kazil, J., and Leung, L. R.: Numerical issues associated with compensating and competing processes in climate models: an example from ECHAM-HAM, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 861–874, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-861-2013, 2013. a
Wan, H., Zhang, S., Rasch, P. J., Larson, V. E., Zeng, X., and Yan, H.: Quantifying and attributing time step sensitivities in present-day climate simulations conducted with EAMv1, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1921–1948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1921-2021, 2021. a, b
Wan, H., Zhang, K., Rasch, P. J., Larson, V. E., Zeng, X., Zhang, S., and Dixon, R.: CondiDiag1.0: a flexible online diagnostic tool for conditional sampling and budget analysis in the E3SM atmosphere model (EAM), Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3205–3231, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3205-2022, 2022. a
Wan, H., Zhang, K., Vogl, C. J., Woodward, C. S., Easter, R. C., Rasch, P. J., Feng, Y., and Wang, H.: Numerical coupling of aerosol emissions, dry removal, and turbulent mixing in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) – Part 1: Dust budget analyses and the impacts of a revised coupling scheme, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1387–1407, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1387-2024, 2024. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u
Williamson, D. L.: The effect of time steps and time-scales on parametrization suites, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 548–560, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1992, 2013. a, b
Zhou, L. and Harris, L.: Integrated Dynamics-Physics Coupling for Weather to Climate Models: GFDL SHiELD With In-Line Microphysics, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL100519, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100519, 2022. a
Short summary
Generally speaking, accurate climate simulation requires an accurate evolution of the underlying mathematical equations on large computers. The equations are typically formulated and evolved in process groups. Process coupling refers to how the evolution of each group is combined with that of other groups to evolve the full set of equations for the whole atmosphere. This work presents a mathematical framework to evaluate methods without the need to first implement the methods.
Generally speaking, accurate climate simulation requires an accurate evolution of the underlying...
